I would have thought that a wsa:replyTo element containing the child
<wsa:Address> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none</wsa:Address>
could be used to infer a one-way message.
-bob
On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:05 AM, sylvain.marie@fr.schneider-electric.com
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working for the fast few years on Devices Profile for
> Web Services (DPWS) specification, and especially on an
> implementation (https://forge.soa4d.org/). DPWS 1.0 was originally
> referring to WSA member's submission, while DPWS 1.1 specification
> has now moved to WS-Addressing 1.0.
>
> WS-Addressing specifies how messages corresponding to different
> Message Exchange Patterns (MEP) are sent. However it does not seem
> to specify a reliable way to detect which MEP is actually in use. In
> particular the One-Way MEP may not be detected reliably, which
> prevents devices to make any optimisation (for example, send the
> empty HTTP response for SOAP/HTTP binding). The only alternative is
> to inspect the actionUri and refer to a service's WSDL in order to
> retrieve the appropriate MEP.
>
> In DPWS implementations we think that the driver should be able to
> implement the default processing chain without necessary knowing
> about the web services deployed on top of it. We first thought about
> using the absence of "replyTo" as a good indicator for a One-Way MEP
> but since WS-Addressing 1.0 this does not work any more, as replyTo
> always have a default value ("anonymous"). No we are thinking about
> using the absence of "messageId" as a clue to detectt One-Way MEPs
> but this is clearly a hack and not something we may rely on in he
> future.
>
> What is the opinion of WS-Addressing's WG about this ? Thank you
> very much in advance,
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Sylvain
>
> <0F385492.jpg> Sylvain MARIÃ
> Embedded Software Engineer
> sylvain.marie@schneider-electric.com
> +33 (0)4 76 57 67 31 / 34 67 31
>